We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Defendant argued that the claims should be dismissed because plaintiff had not and could not allege that defendant’s accused regulator included the required guide sleeve. The Court followed precedent suggesting that where claim construction was required to decide a Rule 12 motion, the motion should be dismissed. Because granting the motion would have required claim construction, the motion was denied. Additionally, the Court declined to consider pictures of the relevant devices in defendants papers because they were outside of the complaint, which is the Court’s focus on a Rule 12 motion.